In Tulving’s initial characterization, episodic memory was one of multiple memory systems. It was postulated, in pursuit of explanatory depth, as displaying proprietary operations, representations, and substrates such as to explain a range of cognitive, behavioural, and experiential phenomena. Yet the subsequent development of this research program has, paradoxically, introduced surprising doubts about the nature, and indeed existence, of episodic memory. On dominant versions of the ‘common system’ view, on which a single simulation system underlies both remembering and imagining, there (...) are no processes unique to memory to support robust generalizations with inductive potential. Eliminativism about episodic memory seems to follow from the claim that it has no dedicated neurocognitive system of its own. After identifying this under-noticed threat, we push back against modern eliminativists by surveying recent evidence that still indicates specialized mechanisms, computations, and representations that are distinctly mnemic in character. We argue that contemporary realists about episodic memory can retain lessons of the common system approach while resisting the further move to eliminativism. (shrink)

According to the traditional approach in philosophy of memory, when all goes well, our episodic memories of particular events in our personal past constitute firsthand knowledge of the who, what, where, and what-was-it-like of those events. That is, according to the traditional approach, episodic memory is at bottom a capacity for a specific kind of knowledge. However, it’s now becoming increasingly common to treat the core epistemic dimension of episodic memories as present but non-essential, that is, as secondary to whatever (...) episodic memory exists to do. What are the grounds for this “non-epistemic turn” in the philosophy of memory? We identify three based on the empirical study of memory: “the argument from construction” appeals to evidence that the contents of episodic memory are constructed rather than stored; “the argument from error” appeals to evidence that episodic memory is highly error-prone; and, finally, “the argument from animals” appeals to evidence that some nonhuman animals can episodically remember. We argue that all three fail. (shrink)

This paper explores the striking conceptual parallel between contemporary accounts of episodic memory (see e.g. Addis, De Brigard, Michaelian) and picture semantics (Greenberg, Abusch, Maier). It argues that picture semantics captures many familiar distinctions from philosophy of memory, while providing some additional – highly useful – tools and concepts (e.g. a mechanism for representation-to-content conversion and a general notion of situation that is independent of a given perspective). The paper uses these tools to (re-)structure and advance debate in contemporary philosophy (...) of memory. Specifically, it (i) shows how these tools can be employed to defend the propositional nature of episodic memory contents, (ii) gives a sophisticated account of non-actual and non-particular episodic memory objects, and (iii) provides a new argument for pluralism about accuracy concepts and standards. Along the way, it defends a liberal version of the pictorial view of mnemic imagery, reveals faithfulness about accuracy as a (very) weak variant of radical authenticism, and explains different intuitions about the possibility of observer-perspective memories from dreams. The paper closes by suggesting, inversely, the import of these applications for picture semantics. (shrink)

The origin of memories is thought to be found in sensory perception. This conception is central to how the memory sciences characterize encoding. This paper considers how novel memory traces can be formed independently of external sensory inputs. I present a case study in which memory traces are created without sensory perception using a technique I call optogenetic memory implantation. Comparing this artificial process with normal memory encoding, I consider its implications for rethinking the causal chain that leads to remembering.

Neste ensaio, exploro a questão acerca dos veritadores para atribuições de lembrança de eventos, as quais expresso com o esquema “S lembra de E”. Para responder esta questão, distingo o lembrar no sentido descritivo, baseado na experiência subjetiva, do lembrar no sentido normativo, o qual exige algum tipo de correspondência com os eventos passados reais. Como método de abordagem das atribuições de lembrança, uso o método dos casos. A partir deste método, discuto a aplicação da exigência de acurácia e da (...) condição de experiência passada a atribuições de lembrança. Para esclarecer este ponto, abordo o problema metafísico do passado como fundamento ontológico de verdades presentes sobre lembranças. Esta abordagem, por sua vez, me leva à análise crítica da solução de Aristóteles, a qual foca no modo de consideração de uma imagem mental. Concluo que, embora a abordagem aristotélica ofereça insights valiosos, uma teoria contemporânea da veritação das atribuições de lembrança deve incorporar elementos da filosofia da memória para abordar adequadamente as complexidades das atribuições de lembrança. (shrink)

In this text, I explore the issue of the accuracy of experiential memories, focusing on the fit between the imagistic elements of an experiential memory and the experience that is remembered. My starting point is the taxonomy of memory, which clarifies what I am talking about, as I will only focus on long-term memories that involve mental imagery. Having clarified this, I will move on to a discussion of the normative requirements of memory, focusing on the requirement that a memory (...) conforms to what was previously experienced by the subject. I then discuss how this requirement is treated by two contemporary philosophical views on the nature of memory: causalism and simulationism. Next, I discuss two ways memory can adjust to the past: by adjusting to the remembered event (alethism) or the past perception of the event (authenticism). Finally, I present descriptivism and pictorialism, two views on how the mental imagery that constitutes an experiential memory can adjust to the past, and defend the explanatory superiority of pictorialism. (shrink)

Simulation theory is a radical and yet increasingly popular view about episodic memory. It is the view that episodic memory and episodic simulation are the same natural kind. I argue that while simulation theory offers an important insight, it also makes an overreach. While episodic memory and episodic simulation likely reflect a common natural kind, they also differ in natural kind. They differ in natural kind because episodic memory is partly defined by projectible properties and memory trace mechanisms that episodic (...) simulation lacks. (shrink)

There is a substantial disagreement in the literature over whether ‘remembering’ is a normative concept. Some philosophers have attempted to defend the normativity of ‘remembering’ by highlighting its normative importance or its conceptual affinities with ‘knowing’ or ‘duties’. This paper will first reveal defects of these existing normativist arguments. After that, I will propose and defend a new normativist argument, according to which the concept ‘remembering’ is partly constituted by a paradigmatically normative concept, namely ‘rational’. To be more specific, I (...) argue that full possession of the concept of ‘remembering’ requires having an inclination to believe that ‘if S remembers that p, then S would be (at least defeasibly) rational in holding a memory-based belief that p’. This, according to a persuasive constitutive account of normative concepts, suffices to demonstrate the normative nature of remembering. (shrink)

This is the author's response in the book symposium on Bence Nanay's Mental imagery: Philosophy, psychology, neuroscience (Oxford University Press, 2023), focusing, among other questions, on aphantasia, the relation between mental imagery and predictive processing, and the collaborative endeavor between philosophy and the cognitive sciences.